Demand for housing will rise as the baby-boom generation
downsizes and so-called millennials seek urban housing, closer to
where they work and want to play.

The current exurban supply gut isn't of interest to these
buyers: it's too big, too far away, and too expensive due to
heavy fuel demands.

Light rails could be organized as public-private
partnerships, where private companies get guaranteed returns (via
taxes on fares) on their upfront investment.

The author's note the difficult political environment as a reason
why this won't work. But they argue that it worked in Republican
Salt Lake City, and could work in other parts of the country.

That may be true, but it ignores several key problems that are
going to be impacting the real estate market for sometime.

Supply gut: prices will have to fall on homes
as buyers have been scarce; millennials might be tempted into
these exurbs, especially if more fuel efficient cars are
developed and they are allowed to telecommute from home.

Location: The key housing market crises are in
Florida, Nevada, and California. Development companies there
are so far in the red they can't suddenly start buying up urban
space and rebuilding it.

Where will the investment capital come from:
The article mentions over $1 trillion sitting on the sidelines.
That's fine, but why would an investor suddenly buy into, or
make a bet on, future housing demand when yields are so low
right now they make emerging markets the only attractive
option?

It is an interesting idea, but like any, light rail is not the
solution to a national problem. It may help fix Northern
California's real estate problem, or inspire growth in urban
centers with jobs growth, but it isn't going to drive a massive
amount of capital back into the market, or construction job
growth, overnight.